Reilly v. State (2002)

Indeed, we have noted that, "juries should be instructed as to the appropriate intent that is an element of the particular crime; it is more important that the jury understand what exactly they [are required] to determine." Keats v. State, 2003 WY 19, ¶ 13 , 64 P.3d 104, 108 (Wyo.2003) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (quoting Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶ 9 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1262-63 (Wyo.2002) abrogated by Granzer v. State, 2008 WY 118 , 193 P.3d 266 (Wyo.200…

Reilly v. State, 55 P.3d 1259, 1262 (Wyo. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Granzer v. State, 193 P.3d 266 (Wyo. 2008).

Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶ 14 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1264 (Wyo. 2002) ("[F]ailure to object to instructions at trial before the jury begins its deliberations operates to preclude appellate review of the instructions, which become the law of the case unless a plain or fundamental error can be shown to prevail.").

Lapp, ¶10, 100 P.3d at 865 ; Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, 20 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1267 (Wyo.2002).

Seymore v. State, 2007 WY 32, ¶ 13 , 152 P.3d 401, 406 (Wyo. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Granzer v. State, 2008 WY 118 , 193 P.3d 266 (Wyo. 2008) (citing Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶¶ 8-9 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1262-63 (Wyo. 2002)). [¶16] In reviewing an Arizona statute which in part closely mirrors § 6-5-208, an appellate court criticized the minority position by explaining the conduct that was prohibited by the statute.

Granzer v. State, 2008 WY 118, ¶ 19 , 193 P.3d 266, 272 (Wyo.2008). [111] Jury instructions are "designed to inform the jury about the applicable law so that the jury may apply that law to its own findings with respect to the material facts." Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶ 16 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1265 (Wyo.2002), quoting Brown v. State, 817 P.2d 429, 439 (Wyo.1991).

A failure to give any instruction on an essential element of a criminal offense is fundamental error, as is a confusing or misleading instruction, requiring reversal of the defendant’s conviction!.] Vigil [v. State], 859 P.2d [659] at 662 [(Wyo.1993)], quoting Cole v. Young, 817 F.2d 412, 423 (7th Cir.1987) (emphasis added); Phillips v. State, 760 P.2d 388, 390 (Wyo.1988); Redland v. State, 766 P.2d 1173,1174 (Wyo.1989).” Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶ 16 , 55 P.3d 1259, 12…

No crime has been committed, for instance, if an adult community corrections resident fails to return to the facility because of disabling injuries suffered in an automobile accident or a natural calamity.” Id. [¶10] In concluding the district court’s failure to instruct on voluntariness was error, Seymore relied on the following statement from Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶ 8 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1262 (Wyo. 2002), which was quoted from Dorador v. State, 573 P.2d 839, 843 (Wyo. …

In Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶ 8 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1262 (Wyo. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Granzer v. State, 2008 WY 118 , 193 P.3d 266 (Wyo. 2008), we explained that “an ‘attempt’ is a ‘specific intent’ crime in that the attempt statute requires that one act with the intent to commit the object crime.” In Reilly , we went on ¡to explain that it is not “legally or logically impossible for a person to attempt a general intent crime.” Id. at ¶ 12, 55 P.3d at 1263 . […

Id., 116-12; 55 P.3d at 1261-68 (footnote omitted).

Bloomfield, ¶ 13, 234 P.3d at 372 ; Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶ 12 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1263 (Wyo.2002).

See, e.g., Bloomfield v. State, 2010 WY 97, ¶ 13 , 234 P.3d 366, 371 (Wyo.2010); Butz v. State, 2007 WY 152, ¶ 13 , 167 P.3d 650, 654 (Wyo.2007); Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶ 8 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1262 (Wyo.2002); King, ¶ 22 n. 1, 40 P.3d at 705 n. 1; Rowe, 974 P.2d at 939 ; Cox v. State, 829 P.2d 1188 , 1185 (Wyo.1992). ¶19] Despite the consistent application of the concepts of specific and general intent in our precedent, Ms. Mowery points to language from Dean v. State, 66…

Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶ 8 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1262 (2002).

As we said in Compton, 931 P.2d at 940 , 941 (quoting People v. Frysig, 628 P.2d 1004 , 1007 n. 4, 1008 (Colo.1981)), the question presented to the jury in an attempt case essentially has two levels: (1) whether the person had " 'the intent to perform acts which, if completed, would constitute the underlying offense'"-in other words, did the person intend the conduct that constitutes the substantial step; and (2) whether the person had the intent necessary as an element of t…

Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, 8 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1262 (2002).

Sanchez v. State, 2006 WY 12, ¶ 19 , 126 P.3d 897, 904 (Wyo.2006); Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶ 15 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1264-65 (Wyo.2002).

Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156 , *955 ¶15, 55 P3d 1259, ¶15 (Wyo.2002); Williams, at 1 12; Brown, at 110; Ogden, at T9. [192] At issue in this case is the propriety of the trial court's elements instructions concerning the first degree murder counts involving the wife and child.

See Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, ¶¶ 14-16 , 55 P.3d 1259, 1264-65 (Wyo.2002); Williams v. State, 2002 WY 136, ¶¶ 11-12 , 54 P.3d 248, 251 (Wyo.2002); Black v. State, 2002 WY 72, ¶¶ 5-7 , 46 P.3d 298, 300 (Wyo.2002); Brown v. State, 2002 WY 61, ¶¶ 9-10 , 44 P.3d 97 , 100 *552 (Wyo.2002); and Ogden v. State, 2001 WY 109, ¶¶ 8-12 , 34 P.3d 271, 274 (Wyo.2001).